Skip to content


Hyderali Vs. the Superintending Engineer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1216/81
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)369
AppellantHyderali
RespondentThe Superintending Engineer
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 226--writ--maintainability of--review petition pending before superintending engineer--held, high court not be interfere during pendency of petition. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the..........gave his consent. acting on that consent the divisional irrigation officer affected the change of khala. the learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner and two others have submitted an application for review or revision before the superintending engineer for setting aside the order dated 29 4-1981 passed by him as the same was passed without notice to them, he also pointed out that the petitioner does not know under what circumstances the application dated 9-11-1976 was filed, but if the petitioner's predecessor had submitted such an application there would have been no occasion to submit objections on 19-4-78 & the matter would have been disposed of with consent in the year 1976. i need not go into all these questions. the petitioner may raise these.....
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner's grievance is that for his land situated at Square No. 163/399, the sanctioned Khala was from stone No. 161/400 to Stone No. 163/400. This Khala was subseqeuntly changed from Stone No. 161/401 to Stone No. 163/401 by the order of the Executive Engineer dated 14-1-81 and maintained by the Superintendent Engineer by his order dated 29-4-81. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's grand father Ahmed Deen, the original land holder, submitted his objection against the change of 'khola' on 19-4-1978. Ahmed Deen expired on 6-3-1980. The 'Khala' was changed without notice to the petitioner.

3. Mr. Sandhu, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 3, invited the attention of this Court to the application submitted by the Ahmed Deen on 9-11-76 to 'the Executive Engineer wherein he gave his consent. Acting on that consent the Divisional Irrigation officer affected the change of Khala. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the petitioner and two others have submitted an application for review or revision before the Superintending Engineer for setting aside the order dated 29 4-1981 passed by him as the same was passed without notice to them, he also pointed out that the petitioner does not know under what circumstances the application dated 9-11-1976 was filed, but if the petitioner's predecessor had submitted such an application there would have been no occasion to submit objections on 19-4-78 & the matter would have been disposed of with consent in the year 1976. I need not go into all these questions. The petitioner may raise these matters before the Superintending Engineer, before whom an application in the nature of review is already pending. The petitioner should first pursue the application submitted by him before the superintending Engineer. He may also bring the technical aspect of the matter to the notice of the Superintending Engineer. It would not be proper for this court at this stage to interfere in the impugned order in view of the pendency of the petitioner's application before the Superintending Engineer.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. However it is observed that in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order, which may be passed on his application for review, he may seek such remedy which may be available to him in law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //